|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Headship
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
On the basis of Ephesians 5: 31-32. Of course, even Paul says this is a profound mystery, so I may have it wrong!
I guess that it would be one of the reasons why there is no marriage in heaven.
Wow you hang a lot on a very unclear and difficult passage.
Interestingly (or perhaps not), when God introduces marriage in the first place, it's because Adam was lonely.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Also is a woman submitting to an abusive husband a type of codependency which does neither of them any good?
Agreed.
Although this discussion presumes a modern sense of the autonomous nuclear family. My view of church is a much wider family where active steps are taken to prevent this happening in the first place and intervening when it does.
IME wives given support to separate from their abusing husbands often cave in and return to him well before the root causes are addressed. But I think that is mostly because of our culture's 'don't stick your nose into my family' way of (not) dealing with life.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My view of church is a much wider family where active steps are taken to prevent this happening in the first place and intervening when it does.
I submit that one doesn't view this terribly often.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
That's okay, I accept your submission graciously and promise to love you as I love my own body.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Don't touch me there.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I think the point that you're not following is that a benign human dictator is, because of the dark side of human nature, a pipe dream that doesn't exist. A contradiction in terms.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) That has been my point all along. Setting something up as a contradiction in terms is a dead-end strategy for any discussion.
It's only a dead end if you want to argue for the benefits of marriage - or any other power relationship - as a benevolent dictatorship.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
For what it's worth, I thought Eliab's original point was perfectly clear and I'm not sure why it's causing you drama. No faliible human being should be put in a position of permanent power over another human being or beings with no kind of check or balance. And that includes a husband over a wife.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
On the basis of Ephesians 5: 31-32. Of course, even Paul says this is a profound mystery, so I may have it wrong!
I guess that it would be one of the reasons why there is no marriage in heaven.
Wow you hang a lot on a very unclear and difficult passage.
Interestingly (or perhaps not), when God introduces marriage in the first place, it's because Adam was lonely.
Wow, you hang a lot on an unclear and difficult passage yourself. Anyway, God creates marriage because it is "not good" for Adam to be alone. I'm not sure that was any reflection of his emotional state.
I'm not sure the Ephesians 5 things is that difficult anyway. Paul quotes a passage about marriage in Genesis and then says "I am saying this refers to Christ and the church." I don't think it's "hanging a lot" on that to say that marriage refers to Christ and the church.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No faliible human being should be put in a position of permanent power over another human being or beings with no kind of check or balance. And that includes a husband over a wife.
Exactly - seventeen pages of posts not needed - this sentence sums it up perfectly.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No faliible human being should be put in a position of permanent power over another human being or beings with no kind of check or balance. And that includes a husband over a wife.
Exactly - seventeen pages of posts not needed - this sentence sums it up perfectly.
Sums what up? Since when has anyone said that a husband should be allowed to be a dictator?
The description of secular authority in Romans 13 that Paul gives sounds pretty ultimate to me, and yet that notion of authority did not stop the Apostles (e.g. in Acts 4) saying that they would rather obey God than man.
In any country in which I have lived there are laws against either spouse abusing their partner. Not all nations have such laws but then in those countries it is not just marriage that is not protected.
We are right back where we started. All human authority needs to be accountable because there is no such thing as a benign (human) dictator. And?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
quote:
What clearly doesn't display anything about Jesus and the church is the purely egalitarian, modern conception of marriage that we just both help each other out where we can. That's also pretty rubbish for promoting holiness too IMO.
Allowing for the fact that an egalitarian concept of marriage can embody a lot more than 'just helping each other out where we can', I'm not clear why it should be unable to promote holiness. I would argue that mutual self-sacrificial submission does that very well.
Yes, sorry, you're quite right. Apologies. Whole post written before brain in gear.
Would it help, conceptually, to distinguish the formal power structure within a marriage from the personal disposition of the people involved?
I think we agree that the personal disposition of a Christian husband ought always to be Christ-like (and Christ-like specifically in the tenderness, compassion, self-giving love and desire for holiness displayed by Jesus). I would accept that it is possible (within human limits) to have that disposition within a ‘headship' marriage, and concede that it is possible to lack that disposition within an egalitarian marriage.
My argument would be:
1. The thrust of the Biblical command is aimed at personal disposition rather than formal structure. St Paul cares more that I should try to be like Jesus in loving my wife than he does about casting votes and exercise of authority.
2. Scripture absolutely and always requires this personal disposition for husbands, but leaves us at liberty as far as the formal structure of a marriage is concerned. We are not bound to adopt, as normative for Christians, any specific Greek/Roman/Jewish model for marriage, even if the original writers and hearers of scripture had a particular model in mind.
3. It is appropriate to ask whether a ‘headship' structure for marriage is an aid or hinderance to the required personal disposition. If it appears that it is a hinderance, and we are free to reform it for the better, then to do so would be a duty.
4. It is also appropriate to ask whether the required personal disposition for wives is so very different to that required for husbands as necessarily to require a complementarian model for marriage.
5. The arguments in favour of formal headship are weak, and though (on the authority of Ephesians 5) such a structure is compatible with Christ-like love, an egalitarian structure is better suited than a headship one.
6. The differences in duty between husband and wife are understood better as the different working, within a formal structure of inequality, of the same general duty of Christian humility than they are indicative of a difference between what is morally right for men compared to women. There is no reason to suppose that women need not be tender, compassionate, self-giving promotors of holiness, and no reason to suppose that respectfulness is not a virtue for men. The passage is better understood as teaching that when a good Christian is in a position of authority, her humility will show itself as gentleness, and when a good Christian is under authority, his humility will be seen in respectful obedience. These are expressions of the same duty, to be like Christ, rather than commands to practice a gender-specific virtue.
I think that's a rather long-winded answer to Johnny S, too. "Submission" to formal authority isn't the virtue here. Humility is - and humility may require submission. And it is impossible to characterise formal authority as inherently good or bad - it may be good if it serves good ends, or prevents worse abuses than it creates. It is bad otherwise, between ordinary humans, because it is so clearly subject to abuse.
It is open to us to promote or abolish authority structures according to general ethical principles. Christians are free to decide that when Scripture commands slaves and children to obey their earthly masters and parents, the formal authority of masters is, on balance, pernicious, and to be abolished, whereas the formal authority of parents is, on balance, good, and to be retained. We are at liberty to ask whether we ought to abolish, or lessen, or change, or continue, or strengthen, the formal authority of husbands compared to what it was in St Paul's day. On the basis that it is humility and mutual love that are the invariables of Christian marriage, I think that the ends of marriage are better served if formal authority is abolished. I don't need to argue that authority is always inherently wrong to get to that point: it is enough to say that in this specific case, formal authority serves no good purpose.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Would it help, conceptually, to distinguish the formal power structure within a marriage from the personal disposition of the people involved?
Possibly. Lep can speak for himself but I think the issue of authority is being over emphasised. To me it is more a question of responsibility and roles.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
3. It is appropriate to ask whether a ‘headship' structure for marriage is an aid or hinderance to the required personal disposition. If it appears that it is a hinderance, and we are free to reform it for the better, then to do so would be a duty.
Agreed.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
4. It is also appropriate to ask whether the required personal disposition for wives is so very different to that required for husbands as necessarily to require a complementarian model for marriage.
5. The arguments in favour of formal headship are weak, and though (on the authority of Ephesians 5) such a structure is compatible with Christ-like love, an egalitarian structure is better suited than a headship one.
I think you come to this position because you are only comparing the variable of the use and abuse of authority. However, the more we move towards the egalitarian model the more independent (of each other) the couple become. These issues are two sides of the same coin.
My view is that egalitarianism has been a big factor in the increase in the divorce rate over the past 60 years or so. In the past a more complementarian model led to some women trapped in abusive marriages and so we have changed. However, in viewing husbands and wives as equal in role as well as status has led to a modern definition of marriage as 'two single people living together' - either partner is replaceable since there is nothing that they bring to the relationship that could not be found in myself in the first place.
So (some) progress has been made in protecting women from abuse but I think it has come at a great price. I'm not for a moment suggesting that we go backwards in the protection of women (I'd argue we have much further to go) but I am saying that I don't think you've taken into consideration all the factors here.
To my mind the key question is about how to keep authority accountable, not how to get rid of authority. (And I'm a Baptist - and therefore you probably know how big we are about keeping leadership accountable!)
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I don't need to argue that authority is always inherently wrong to get to that point: it is enough to say that in this specific case, formal authority serves no good purpose.
I get your point here and agree. However, see my comments above about:
1. I don't think this is really about authority - it's about initiative and responsibility. I'm probably not expressing it very well but it is about being complementary (in the original sense of the word, without necessarily assuming any of its more recent baggage.)
2. I do think we lose something if we adopt a purely egalitarian model. In a marriage the individual has to submit to the couple.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
On reflection, I want to make it clear that I'm asking questions of egalitarianism rather than advocating a positive position on complementarianism at the moment.
The big question in mind is this - is there a complementarian model which does not involve authority?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... My view is that egalitarianism has been a big factor in the increase in the divorce rate over the past 60 years or so. In the past a more complementarian model led to some women trapped in abusive marriages and so we have changed. However, in viewing husbands and wives as equal in role as well as status has led to a modern definition of marriage as 'two single people living together' - either partner is replaceable since there is nothing that they bring to the relationship that could not be found in myself in the first place. ...
A funny thing happened in the last century - a little thing called feminism, that radical idea that women are entitled to participate just as fully in society as men. Women can now actually live economically and socially independently of a man, something which was exceedingly rare in the past, and generally not viewed positively. That is why the proportion of single women is now so high, not just the number of divorced women. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. It is no longer essential for a woman to marry to secure her position in life.
Personally, I think it's all for the good. People should be married because they want to be together, not because they can't fend for themselves. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... The big question in mind is this - is there a complementarian model which does not involve authority?
Animal reproduction: they raise offspring, and some mate for life. Do male animals exercise authority over female animals? OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My view is that egalitarianism has been a big factor in the increase in the divorce rate over the past 60 years or so. In the past a more complementarian model led to some women trapped in abusive marriages and so we have changed. However, in viewing husbands and wives as equal in role as well as status has led to a modern definition of marriage as 'two single people living together' - either partner is replaceable since there is nothing that they bring to the relationship that could not be found in myself in the first place.
This encapsulates my utter dislike of the idea that there can be any kind of 'model' that can somehow be applied to all marriages alike. In Evangelical circles in particular, the debate over gender roles has been framed as a Complementarian versus an Egalitarian model, and to my mind, neither works, precisely because both are so obsessed with 'roles'. Equal roles/different roles - I don't care! It is no accident that the primary meaning of 'role' refers to an actor's part - and a scripted part at that. In other words, anyone who adopts a 'role' is by definition not being their true self.
When two unique individuals come together in marriage, God creates in them a unique one flesh, not a generic one. No other two individuals will ever interact in precisely the same way. A happy marriage will of course be complementarian, in that each partner will complement the other, meeting the other's weaknesses with their strengths, and vice versa; where both are weak, they will learn to be strong together; and where both are strong, they will in love and security delight in one another's gifts. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with gender except as each unique marriage works that out in practice - and no 'model' or pre-scriptive 'roles' can tell them how to do that.
And neither is it anything to do either partner being "somehow replaceable", as you suggest, Johnny, but is in fact entirely the opposite. A loved one is never replaceable by anyone else, as we all know; however, one person can play a 'role' just as well as another.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... My view is that egalitarianism has been a big factor in the increase in the divorce rate over the past 60 years or so.
In the sense that this is true, it is a good thing. A woman needn't be trapped in a shitty marriage anymore because she can't support herself and her children.
The increase in divorce due to the easiness of obtaining one when people just hit a rough patch or the infatuation stage is over is not necessarily a good thing, but it has nothing to do with egalitarianism.
[ 24. December 2011, 00:10: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Personally, I think it's all for the good.
I didn't say that it was bad. I just said that I don't think that it is all good.
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Animal reproduction: they raise offspring, and some mate for life. Do male animals exercise authority over female animals?
That comment shows how massive the cultural shifts have been through the 20th century. Previous generations would shudder - civilisation has usually been defined in contradistinction with animal nature.
I thought humanity had evolved - wouldn't looking to animals be a step backwards?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
A loved one is never replaceable by anyone else, as we all know; however, one person can play a 'role' just as well as another.
Thanks Cottontail. I understand your post up to this last statement.
You appear to be saying that a spouse is never replaceable except that they completely are. Please would expand on this bit.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The increase in divorce due to the easiness of obtaining one when people just hit a rough patch or the infatuation stage is over is not necessarily a good thing, but it has nothing to do with egalitarianism.
Have you got any evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) for this? (i.e. that it has nothing to do with egalitarianism.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
A loved one is never replaceable by anyone else, as we all know; however, one person can play a 'role' just as well as another.
Thanks Cottontail. I understand your post up to this last statement.
You appear to be saying that a spouse is never replaceable except that they completely are. Please would expand on this bit.
Gladly.
You wrote that
quote:
... viewing husbands and wives as equal in role as well as status has led to a modern definition of marriage as 'two single people living together' - either partner is replaceable, since there is nothing that they bring to the relationship that could not be found in myself in the first place.
If I am reading you correctly, this seems to say that in your view, husbands and wives should ideally be conceived of as equal in status, but different (unequal?) in 'role'.
On my part, I wasn't engaging directly with your equal status/different role characterisation, but rather, was taking issue with the whole terminology of 'roles' in marriage, however these are conceived. As I explained, the idea of 'role' is primarily a theatre term: an actor plays a role, but (s)he can easily be replaced by another actor. What matters is that the lines are said, not who says them. So if we transfer this terminology to a marriage, then the 'role' of husband or of wife can be played just as well - and perhaps even better - by another man or woman.
So I am saying this: that a loved spouse is utterly irreplaceable, because they are so utterly unique. They don't play a 'role' - they are themselves, and ought to be even more themselves precisely as they are made one flesh with another. But as soon as you start talking about "roles" in marriage, then that so downplays the uniqueness of the relationship that the individuals therein become conceptually replaceable.
Therefore, as I see it, the term 'role' implies what you were trying to avoid, that either partner is replaceable. Precisely because a spouse is never replaceable, in my view the terminology and conceptuality of 'roles' in marriage should be rejected outright.
So I guess my question to you then is this: is the terminology or conceptuality of 'roles' vital to your understanding of marriage? Or is it possible to re-formulate either the Complementarian or the Egalitarian position without using this language of acting and script?
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Therefore, as I see it, the term 'role' implies what you were trying to avoid, that either partner is replaceable. Precisely because a spouse is never replaceable, in my view the terminology and conceptuality of 'roles' in marriage should be rejected outright.
Right, got you. That is certainly worth exploring. Thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
So I guess my question to you then is this: is the terminology or conceptuality of 'roles' vital to your understanding of marriage? Or is it possible to re-formulate either the Complementarian or the Egalitarian position without using this language of acting and script?
Thanks for articulating it like this - it is pretty much the same question I was coming up with but from an different direction.
"I'm not sure," is my current answer. Taking the biology of parenting as an example, I'm trying to get my head round what it means to talk about fathers and mothers in language entirely devoid of acting and script. I don't think I can just use the term 'parent' all the time - but maybe that is because of my social conditioning?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Has anyone ever noticed how when this stuff comes up and fingers get pointed at 'egalitarianism' the solution proposed is never ever for men to try submitting to women?
Funny that.
I also find it a bit odd that while 'egalitarianism' gets attacked and questioned when it's women who are involved, I can't remember the last time I saw a bloke proposing that they roll back the equality achieved for them by the electoral reform/ independence movements of the previous age, which challenged the idea that lower class men or colonials should be obeying the divinely-ordained powers placed over them by God and not getting ideas about equality or rights.
Funny that.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
So I guess my question to you then is this: is the terminology or conceptuality of 'roles' vital to your understanding of marriage? Or is it possible to re-formulate either the Complementarian or the Egalitarian position without using this language of acting and script?
Thanks for articulating it like this - it is pretty much the same question I was coming up with but from an different direction.
"I'm not sure," is my current answer. Taking the biology of parenting as an example, I'm trying to get my head round what it means to talk about fathers and mothers in language entirely devoid of acting and script. I don't think I can just use the term 'parent' all the time - but maybe that is because of my social conditioning?
I'm not sure in turn what you mean by "the biology of parenting". Do you mean the simple biology of father providing the sperm, mother incubating the fertilised egg, etc? If so, I can't see how 'role' is relevant here. These aren't 'roles' - it is not the 'role' of the father to provide the sperm - biologically, this is just what being a father is. No script involved!
Or do you mean something beyond simple biology: that in the shared task of parenting, the father and the mother have pre-ordained different functions in the nurture and upbringing of the child? For example, if we are were to be stereotypically traditional about matters, that it is the mother's 'role' to provide comfort, and the father's 'role' to discipline? (Not that I think you would be so simplistic about this.)
Either way, could you unpack this a little?
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
A data point: I've been the house-husband for the last twelve-thirteen years.
I'm the major care giver to the kids, I do the shopping, cooking, cleaning, etc around the house. I have a small part-time job outside of the house, but only got that when both kids had gone to school. Otherwise I work from home.
Now what role does that sound like to you?
Alternatively - my wife goes out every morning in her business dress to the office where she does a high-powered well-paid job, often works late, staggers back in the evening, sometimes not even in time to kiss the kids goodnight, eats her plated meal and drops off in front of the telly.
Now what role does that sound like to you?
The way we work (one parent at home, one parent in full-time employment) is a societal construct. Other societies have different constructs. Other ages have etc, etc. How does this fit into the 'traditional' headship model? (quotes used because I think it's awfully convenient that the blokes get to boss the women around)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I can't remember the last time I saw a bloke proposing that they roll back the equality achieved for them by the electoral reform/ independence movements of the previous age, which challenged the idea that lower class men or colonials should be obeying the divinely-ordained powers placed over them by God and not getting ideas about equality or rights.
I thought we had been discussing that on this thread - and the consensus seems to be that human authority can be a good thing as long as it is accountable.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I can't remember the last time I saw a bloke proposing that they roll back the equality achieved for them by the electoral reform/ independence movements of the previous age, which challenged the idea that lower class men or colonials should be obeying the divinely-ordained powers placed over them by God and not getting ideas about equality or rights.
I thought we had been discussing that on this thread - and the consensus seems to be that human authority can be a good thing as long as it is accountable.
Accountable, replaceable and not gender or class-specific.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
I'm not sure in turn what you mean by "the biology of parenting". Do you mean the simple biology of father providing the sperm, mother incubating the fertilised egg, etc? If so, I can't see how 'role' is relevant here. These aren't 'roles' - it is not the 'role' of the father to provide the sperm - biologically, this is just what being a father is. No script involved!
Or do you mean something beyond simple biology: that in the shared task of parenting, the father and the mother have pre-ordained different functions in the nurture and upbringing of the child? For example, if we are were to be stereotypically traditional about matters, that it is the mother's 'role' to provide comfort, and the father's 'role' to discipline? (Not that I think you would be so simplistic about this.)
Either way, could you unpack this a little?
We are stuck in the trap between what is and what ought to be. I was thinking just about the biology of reproduction - i.e. that you need a man and a woman together for it to work (for humans).
Where you go from there I'm not sure, but my starting point is that men and women are not just animals playing roles.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Now what role does that sound like to you?
Actually on some days I stay at home and am responsible for children (before and after school) while my wife is at work and on other days the roles are reversed.
What role does that sound like to you?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Now what role does that sound like to you?
Actually on some days I stay at home and am responsible for children (before and after school) while my wife is at work and on other days the roles are reversed.
What role does that sound like to you?
Exactly. That would have been unthinkable fifty years ago, unusual thirty years ago, and just about acceptable only ten years ago, when I started.
Since I took on the traditional 'wife' role - because that's what it is - do I still get to exercise headship? Does my wage-earning spouse, in the traditional 'husband' role, get to do it instead?
Or can we accept that male headship as it's usually thought of (and exercised) is a societal construct that has little if anything to do with marriage and our mutual life in Christ?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
I'm not sure in turn what you mean by "the biology of parenting". Do you mean the simple biology of father providing the sperm, mother incubating the fertilised egg, etc? If so, I can't see how 'role' is relevant here. These aren't 'roles' - it is not the 'role' of the father to provide the sperm - biologically, this is just what being a father is. No script involved!
Or do you mean something beyond simple biology: that in the shared task of parenting, the father and the mother have pre-ordained different functions in the nurture and upbringing of the child? For example, if we are were to be stereotypically traditional about matters, that it is the mother's 'role' to provide comfort, and the father's 'role' to discipline? (Not that I think you would be so simplistic about this.)
Either way, could you unpack this a little?
We are stuck in the trap between what is and what ought to be. I was thinking just about the biology of reproduction - i.e. that you need a man and a woman together for it to work (for humans).
I'm sorry if I am being obtuse, Johnny. But what do you mean by "what is" and "what ought to be"? Genuine question.
I accept that you were making a purely biological point, but you also seem to be hoping that something more profound might be read into that biology about male-female relations in general. Though I also accept and respect that you are very cautious about doing so.
But if I may extrapolate a little further from your posts (with pleas for forgiveness if I am misrepresenting you), your hope seems to be, because male and female work in complementary biological fashion to produce a child, then that is at the very least a sign of some larger, spiritual kind of male-female complementarity.
For my part, I don't actually have a problem with that. I said above that I would expect any happy marriage to be complementary, and the different gender functions in reproduction may indeed be a sign of that. I am just wondering why we need a pre-determined script or model to explain exactly how that complementarity should work in each individual marriage. Why can't each couple work that out on an ad hoc basis according to the unique personality and circumstances of each relationship?
I may be reading you wrongly, but is one of your worries that, if gender roles in a marriage are not in some way firmly prescribed by God and nature, then by the alternative criteria of non-gendered, non-prescriptive, ad hoc complementarity, there would be no serious argument against same-sex marriage?
quote:
Where you go from there I'm not sure, but my starting point is that men and women are not just animals playing roles.
We can agree on this one! But neither should a husband and wife be humans playing roles. Why not get rid of the "playing roles" thing altogether, and start from the point that "men and women are not just animals"? Or better still, "men and women are humans"?
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Animal reproduction: they raise offspring, and some mate for life. Do male animals exercise authority over female animals?
That comment shows how massive the cultural shifts have been through the 20th century. Previous generations would shudder - civilisation has usually been defined in contradistinction with animal nature.
I thought humanity had evolved - wouldn't looking to animals be a step backwards?
You asked for an example of a complementary relationship without authority. I have given you one. Animals have effective, productive, complementary relationships without any concept of authority. It looks like you've ducked (nyuk nyuk) the question. Do you have a response other than "O tempora, o mores!"? OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I would say animals do have a form of authority. Most pack, flock or herd animals or birds have strong pecking orders and fight to near death to maintain them.
I think our adult relationships are (or should be) complementary and equal, with no authority because we are human.
[ 24. December 2011, 15:52: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Wow you hang a lot on a very unclear and difficult passage.
Pray tell, what passage would that be, and what do I hang on it?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The increase in divorce due to the easiness of obtaining one when people just hit a rough patch or the infatuation stage is over is not necessarily a good thing, but it has nothing to do with egalitarianism.
Have you got any evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) for this? (i.e. that it has nothing to do with egalitarianism.)
I would say the burden of proof is on the one making the causal claim, not the one denying it. But perhaps you could explain how the causal connection works? What is the link between egalitarianism and people getting divorced when the going gets rough? I don't see one*. If you do, please explain what it is and how it works.
__________
*Other than, possibly, the ability of a woman to survive outside the thralldom of an unequal marriage. Which falls under my clause 1, which as I have said is a good thing, not a bad one. Unless you want to say that it's better for women to be subjects to royal husbands than to have the freedom to divorce that the possibility of supporting themselves in the world brings?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I would say animals do have a form of authority. Most pack, flock or herd animals or birds have strong pecking orders and fight to near death to maintain them. ...
Hierarchy is not the same as authority (although hierarchy may determine who mates with whom, just as it does in humans). OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Not the same - but similar enough to say that a marriage should be neither a relationship where one is subordinate (as in a hierarchy) nor a relationship where one in authority over another.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
I'm off on holiday for two weeks tomorrow (Boxing Day) so I will make a few replies and then have to depart for a while. I'll pick this up when I get back.
Happy Christmas & New Year everyone!
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Or can we accept that male headship as it's usually thought of (and exercised) is a societal construct that has little if anything to do with marriage and our mutual life in Christ?
Quite probably. I'd still like to start with the Church's teaching (in the NT) on marriage though.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
But what do you mean by "what is" and "what ought to be"? Genuine question.
Ever since David Hume people have argued over the 'is-ought problem - i.e. moving from a descriptive statement of what is to an imperative statement about what ought to be.
I observe that my children's cats spend a lot of time sniffing each other's backsides. I have no desire, though, to compel other humans to follow suit.
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
I accept that you were making a purely biological point, but you also seem to be hoping that something more profound might be read into that biology about male-female relations in general. Though I also accept and respect that you are very cautious about doing so.
Correct. I'm being tentative here.
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
But if I may extrapolate a little further from your posts (with pleas for forgiveness if I am misrepresenting you), your hope seems to be, because male and female work in complementary biological fashion to produce a child, then that is at the very least a sign of some larger, spiritual kind of male-female complementarity.
For my part, I don't actually have a problem with that. I said above that I would expect any happy marriage to be complementary, and the different gender functions in reproduction may indeed be a sign of that. I am just wondering why we need a pre-determined script or model to explain exactly how that complementarity should work in each individual marriage. Why can't each couple work that out on an ad hoc basis according to the unique personality and circumstances of each relationship?
I'd agree with you in that we are all different so there should certainly be freedom for each couple to work out that complementarity (a la Doc Tor).
However, I don't think it can be entirely a product of social conditioning and personal decision. For in that case then any sense of genuine complementarity is merely an illusion ... surely?
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
I may be reading you wrongly, but is one of your worries that, if gender roles in a marriage are not in some way firmly prescribed by God and nature, then by the alternative criteria of non-gendered, non-prescriptive, ad hoc complementarity, there would be no serious argument against same-sex marriage?
I am aware that the issues are related (i.e. in the other direction) but I wouldn't say that I am worried about the implication of gender roles to other issues about marriage.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I would say the burden of proof is on the one making the causal claim, not the one denying it. But perhaps you could explain how the causal connection works? What is the link between egalitarianism and people getting divorced when the going gets rough? I don't see one*. If you do, please explain what it is and how it works.
__________
*Other than, possibly, the ability of a woman to survive outside the thralldom of an unequal marriage. Which falls under my clause 1, which as I have said is a good thing, not a bad one. Unless you want to say that it's better for women to be subjects to royal husbands than to have the freedom to divorce that the possibility of supporting themselves in the world brings?
Actually your asterix pretty much says it all. If you make divorce easier then you make it easier. As I said earlier I think that changing the law to increase the protection of women was a good thing. However, when you make it easier to divorce you make it easier to divorce.
A legal maxim is 'hard cases make for bad law' - i.e. that the law is always trying to balance mercy to difficult situations while not making that situation normative.
Egalitarianism has placed an emphasis on individual rights. In so doing it has brought more protection for the individual but less for the couple (as in the relationship of the couple). In our culture we are so scared of being hurt by a relationship that we do all we can to protect ourselves from that pain - even to the point of pre-nuptial agreements. The sad irony of this is that, as with any investment, you get out what you put in. To love someone is to become vulnerable to being hurt. If you never want to be hurt then never, ever love someone.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
That's plenty to be getting on with!
See you'se all when I get back from hols - hopefully the Aussie sun will have come out by then. (I was beginning to wonder if we were on for a white Christmas a week ago.)
[I remember a mate of mine at Theological college recounting a tale from when he had just become a Christian at an enthusiastic new house church on the South Coast of the UK (in the early 80s I think). He came home one day from a sermon on 1 Corinthians 11 and told his wife that now he was a Christian she was going to have to wear a hat. "No way!" she told him. "But, but, I'm the head of this household now so you've got to wear a hat in church."
And then his wife came back with the ultimate killer reply, "Well, if you're the head, you wear the hat!" End of. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ]
[ 25. December 2011, 09:56: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I can't remember the last time I saw a bloke proposing that they roll back the equality achieved for them by the electoral reform/ independence movements of the previous age, which challenged the idea that lower class men or colonials should be obeying the divinely-ordained powers placed over them by God and not getting ideas about equality or rights.
I thought we had been discussing that on this thread - and the consensus seems to be that human authority can be a good thing as long as it is accountable.
Please link to or quote whoever has seriously suggested or considered whether it would be a better thing to have a society where men by virtue of their birth are by default supposed to submit to other men of higher birth, even in a token fashion or or to anyone who has tried complementarian arguments for men going back to the inequalities of the past, for instance variants on the classic 'those who work, those who fight and those who pray'.
Those arguments go much further than marriages. They were used until recent times to legitimise social hierarchy and men (as well as women) knowing their place by virtue of their birth. Submission to hierarchies with the Lord's anointed put in place by his/her coronation ceremony (seen in terms of a marriage ceremony- that's what the ring is for - between monarch and nation, with monarch as head and husband) was extolled as a means of social stability and keeping social order, and I daresay back when royal prerogative meant something there were fewer divorces too. And not much room for that evil individualism when you're all busy getting your Lord's harvest in, and having to neglect your own crops to do it, so he can feed his war-horses and keep up appearances at court.
That was complementarian too - labourers complemented the military class and equally-hierarchical church, everyone had their proper allotted roles and attempts by those getting the shitty end of the stick to do something about it could be met with platitudes about how they were equally valued and scolding about didn't they know how onerous it was to be one of their superiors and held accountable to God for their greater responsibility?
For men, (who have benefitted from all the battles which were fought to break down that kind of rigid social control based on arbitrary hierarchies derived from birth and the patronage of those of high birth), to then seek to impose rigid gender roles and submission upon women in the name of the supposed evils of individualism, is for them to be no better than the wicked servant in the parable.
And if individualism and egalitarianism are the problem and it is admitted that men have abused the legal powers they arrogated to themselves using notions of headship, then it's strange that female headship never gets proposed as an alternative to this. But no, despite thousands of years of documented abuses against women, some men still insist THIS time it will work.
It's much like the folk who thought the problem with slavery was not slavery per se but persuading the masters to be 'nice masters' as Gollum would put it, and coming up with schemes for reform.
When it comes to gender the Bible bases everything upon sand: the false account of men and women given in Genesis. This has led to centuries of monstrous crimes and injustice which are hard for people to admit while keeping some regard for the many good things which have come from Christianity, so there's a tendency to want to downplay this or to want to find some heavily-rationalised fig-leaf for the Bible's unjust and immoral teaching on submission.
L.
[ 25. December 2011, 12:12: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Actually your asterix pretty much says it all. If you make divorce easier then you make it easier.
Um, we weren't arguing about whether easier divorce was caused by divorce being easier. We were arguing about whether easier divorce was caused by egalitarianism. You do see the difference, right?
quote:
As I said earlier I think that changing the law to increase the protection of women was a good thing. However, when you make it easier to divorce you make it easier to divorce.
Thanks for the lesson in logic, Aristotle. This however says nothing. (As is not uncommon with tautology.)
quote:
A legal maxim is 'hard cases make for bad law' - i.e. that the law is always trying to balance mercy to difficult situations while not making that situation normative.
I'm not sure that mercy for battered women is a "hard case" in the sense that that maxim means it. If it is, then the maxim is demonstrably false.
quote:
Egalitarianism has placed an emphasis on individual rights. In so doing it has brought more protection for the individual but less for the couple (as in the relationship of the couple).
What exactly would "protection for the couple" look like, if not forcing people to stay married who do not wish to stay married?
quote:
To love someone is to become vulnerable to being hurt. If you never want to be hurt then never, ever love someone.
Not sure at all what this has to do with no-fault divorce. Just because divorce is easier now doesn't mean that people getting married are getting married thinking, "Well I can always bail if it gets tough." If that were the case, then more people would be getting married than if the escape clause were not present, because people who might think, "I'd get married but there's no way out" wouldn't get married under the old regime, but potentially would get married under the new.
But in fact the number of people getting married is declining pretty steadily.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
That was complementarian too - labourers complemented the military class and equally-hierarchical church, everyone had their proper allotted roles and attempts by those getting the shitty end of the stick to do something about it could be met with platitudes about how they were equally valued and scolding about didn't they know how onerous it was to be one of their superiors and held accountable to God for their greater responsibility?
With a few changes, this is the argument I am fed when I ask why CEO's should make hundreds of times more money than the workers in their firms.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
With a few changes, this is the argument I am fed when I ask why CEO's should make hundreds of times more money than the workers in their firms.
Not so sure about that. Isn't the usual current excuse for high wages for bosses the assertion that everyone could be a high-paid CEO if only they tried hard enough? That and the myth of the Entrepreneur. With the corollary that the workers are lazy scumbags who could all be rich if only they pulled their fingers out and worked harder. And so they hold up individuals who became rich by selling used ball-point pens in a street market in the snow after they left school aged seven and a half to sell in a kind of bizzaro-Stakhnovite cult of the Self-Made Man (or woman).
The strictly hierarchical society presumably claims that we are all called to our station in life (priest, peasant, wife, king, slave) regardless of our abilities or efforts. In fact it would be wrong to try to change your status by working for it. That would be presumption. You ought simply to be content with whatever your situation was.
(Not that any of the English-speaking countries ever were quite that kind of strictly hierarchical society in real life - but then the institution of complementarian marriage never quite existed in the James Dobson sense either)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Horatio Alger has been replaced by Ayn Rand.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
To me, no matter how people want to couch the argument in matters of psychology or biology, it all comes down to how people understand biblical authority; and for people who have a need, for whatever reason, to believe that nothing said in Scripture is ever simply incorrect due to the authors' lack of information/enculturated or personal biases or related translation problems,or was written in an historical/cultural context that's not properly applicable on a wider scale nor ever intended to be -- if you labor under those limitations, then of course the idea of an egalitarian marriage is going to be threatening; it pulls a pivotal apple(pardon the allusion to A and E) out of the applecart, and pretty soon you're questioning other societal norms assumed as givens in Scripture, and wondering if Genesis is history or poetry, and otherwise getting too close to that conservative third rail.
Obviously since gender politics affects us all every day this will be an especially hot-button topic, but to me it's just one of many related intra-Christian arguments that all come back down to how one reads Scripture. I grew up in an "inerrant" denomination and wound up (just like the old folks warned, after going away to school and being exposed to dangerous ideas from outside sources) in another, more liberal denomination within the same tradition. So I've heard all the arguments on both sides. I mean, Lutherans and others have argued against democracy as a political system on the same "authority of Scripture" grounds; when I was a kid I was told that the heroes of the American revolution were actually sinners who were rebelling against God's intended social order. (In a church where the "Christian" and American flags were on either side of the altar. But I digress...) So.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
__________
*Other than, possibly, the ability of a woman to survive outside the thralldom of an unequal marriage. Which falls under my clause 1, which as I have said is a good thing, not a bad one. Unless you want to say that it's better for women to be subjects to royal husbands than to have the freedom to divorce that the possibility of supporting themselves in the world brings?
Actually your asterix pretty much says it all. If you make divorce easier then you make it easier.
<snip>
Egalitarianism has placed an emphasis on individual rights. In so doing it has brought more protection for the individual but less for the couple (as in the relationship of the couple). In our culture we are so scared of being hurt by a relationship that we do all we can to protect ourselves from that pain - even to the point of pre-nuptial agreements.
I find it interesting and telling that you state your position as "a relationship" itself being intrinsically hurtful, rather than individuals hurting each other. I'm still not clear as to why you think a social structure you consider to be hurtful should be promoted over alternatives you admit to be less harmful, other than a willingness to sacrifice the happiness and wellbeing of others on the altar of your nostalgia.
I'm also not clear what your proposed solution is to the "problem" of women being able to make their own living. Legally enforced gender restrictions on certain professions?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
How sad that Johnny S won't come and answer these questions.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How sad that Johnny S won't come and answer these questions.
I believe he's still on holiday.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
